SBS Transit, SMRT submit applications for fare adjustment

[snowman.022851697]

I feel the pinch of fare rise - or rather, rises. I am just wondering out loud - so LTA bears all the cost of building tracks and buying trains n buses? Funded by whom? And the fares paid by all the users go to -??


LTA manages upgrades to the train system. SMRT only manages the operations (maintenance, train overhaul, drivers, service). SMRT also have no right to add new bus services as all of these is managed by LTA. In other words, SMRT only manages the current infrastructure, and the purchase of RIGID buses. If for any reason SMRT decides to purchase articulated (\"bendy\") buses, they have to verify with LTA. SMRT also cannot purchase double decker buses because their depots cannot accommodate them.

[snowman.022851697]

I must also say that I am \"impress\" how a 13yr old can know so much about the transport company, including the industry jargon. Or perhaps, stating the age could be a smokescreen to shield any attacks, and made the posts more credible.



Age does not determine credibility.

[tankee]

I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.


it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

[WeiHan]

From what I checked.


SMRT has 1,518,131,296 floating shares.

The last traded price per share was S$1.865.

Given that the profit was S$200 millions as stated in previous post (I didn’t check). It amounts to S$0.13165 porfit per share.

The PE ratio will be 14.16 (it means that if the profit remains at this level and never increase or decrease, it take 14 years for you to get back all your principal investment in this company)

One also has to consider the quality of the profit. For other companies that have fierce competition, a PE ratio of 14 is definitely worse off than SMRT because SMRT is a monopoly business. Also, it seems that it is almost a riskless business unlike other listed companies. So is it wildly profitable?

[tutormum]

The main issue here is \"public\". We are talking about public transport. It is for the masses. Over 80% of the masses stays in HDB flats and earn a median salary of less than $2000 a month. A 1% of fare increase will work out to less than 1 cents, we may argue. However, the increase is frequent. Too frequent for comfort and that is the main grouse of the masses. Take, for example, a commuter spending $1, the minimum fare to commute to and from work every day for 5 days a week, averaging 22 days a month. That amounts to $44 a month, which is 44/2000 X 100 = 2.2% of his monthly salary. This is the minimum amount (best scenario, mind you). However, if he has a family of 4 with 2 schoolgoing children, each spending $0.45 per trip = $0.45 x 2 x 2 = $1.80 per day, $42.20. Presuming his DW is SAHM, total transport = $86.20, almost 5% of his income. This does not include any outings the family may have during the month. Personally, I spend at least $60 on transport myself. DS2 takes the train and transfer to bus = $45 monthly train concession and $20 bus = $65. DS3 takes bus with transfer = $0.55 per trip, $1.10 per day, $24.20. DS1 spends more cos though he works 12 hour shifts and commute less to work, he goes for night classes everyday. His transport about $100. DH drives and takes the bus or train occasionally. Of course, include outings etc, the amount is much higher. Guess putting forth my own family would reduce unnecessary dispute.

Is not the masses' fault that there is overcrowding. I know this open another can of worms. Is this what the masses have to put for economic progress, higher standard of living etc.
JMHO

[sall]

amcon:

sall:

limlim, don't belittle a 13 yo student. If I didn't say snowman is 13 yo in an earlier post, will you attack his comments so vehemently?

On the contrary, I think limlim is arguing based on facts. If snowman does not agree to people using his \"age\", then in the first place, please do not state it out loud.

I must also say that I am \"impress\" how a 13yr old can know so much about the transport company, including the industry jargon. Or perhaps, stating the age could be a smokescreen to shield any attacks, and made the posts more credible.

Snowman did not state his age. I happen to read his posts in another thread, that's why I know he's 13 yo. I mentioned his age, not him.

[snowman.022851697]

Just an honest opinion from a fellow transport enthusiast - Singaporeans take public transport for granted. We expect buses to be at the foot of our blocks and trains to operate flawlessly. But buses and trains are machines and brake down. When there are flaws, everyone cries.


I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.

it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

May I have a solution as to how overcrowding can be solved? I'm not ridiculing you, I just want your opinion

[3Boys]

Of course it is public transport, it serves the public at large.


However, just because it is a public service, it does not mean that it can best serve its aim by being publicly OWNED (aka, nationalised, aka owned by gahmen).

There is cost of operating these services, agreed? And when the public expectations rise with regards to standards as pertains to frequency, comfort etc., the costs incurred will be even higher, yes?

So, the question I have here, to tax-paying Singaporeans (and foreigners, as the case may be), is whether or not the cost of operating these services be borne by the folk who use them (80+% of Singaporeans), OR, the tax-payers at large, with lesser accountability for costs as the tab is picked up by ah kong?

I do not mind if SMRT is non-profit, but there must be an effort for the consumers of a service to be bearing the cost of operating that service, and not pass the buck to someone else. With a daily ridership of > 1.5M per day, even if SMRT returned all of the profits ($200M/year, ca. $0.54M/day), it comes down to $0.36 per person per day. That’s $44 per month for a family of 4, that’s what you are paying for SMRT’s ‘profits’. I don’t think this is unreasonable. The large majority of commuters can afford this, and this is the fair and responsible way for this service to be costed and operated.

Of course, there are the poor who will find this sum difficult to manage. In which case, there should be public assistance schemes to provide grants and subsidies to THESE group of people, and not provide public subsidy for 80%+ of the population. When you do that, effectively everyone ends up paying anyway, so you may as well make it transparent with direct charges rather than hidden subsidies.

[Daddy D]

To snowman.697,

This is a open forum… if u post something, u will get a response.

- Stop using BOLD and !!!.. it is rude when used in typing.
- "not like on Facebook where all of them gang up on me"… U have to do some self-reflection
- "there is no point arguing with these people"… U need to work on your EQ
- If u r Ong You Yuan (just google)… seriously u r just a kid. I’m talking about rising living costs here, what do you know about rising living costs if you are still taking allowance from your parents?
- What is a "transport enthusiast"? SMRT, SBS pay their consultants, engineers $$ to do all these analysis… they don’t need you.
- Where will you be in 10 years time? What is your acheivement? (And I’m not referring to taking photo of the MRT with graffiti that led to the arrest of the Swiss guy)
- Either you excel in your studies, or you learn a skill, or be an entrepreneur. If you think you are good with transportation, work on it to make it your career. But SBS/SMRT is not likely to employ you if you do not have the paper qualifications.
- I think you are more mis-guided than impressive. Our real life does not evolve on forum rules.
- STOP wasting your time and start planning your life.

This is a PARENT talking to a KID.

[corneyAmber]

tankee:

I disagree that overcrowding of public transport cannot be solved.


it is pure poor planning. no excuse.

I support you, Tankee!!!